should I pay for accident?

bigjl

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

No it won''t, stick to first aid advice.;)

Yawn, what is first aid, don't know have no training in First Aid, think you have me confused with St Johns.

If you knew as much as you think you will know that it is a regular tactic for the Police to inspect any car they are involved in a collision with to ensure it is fully road legal.

If it isn't then it shouldn't have been on the road and wil be considered at fault.

But then again the person that told me that was a Met Traffic Officer that came to investigate the accident when a Police Van rear ended me at lights in '95, when I asked him why they where taking such a close look at my car and documents he told me the above.

Obviously he is not in a position to know the what he is talking about, after all he is the one trained to apportion blame in the event of a RTC.

bigjl

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


Did you learn that in the Ambulance Service or else where?

Why not just go away, you are a waste of everybodies time.

bigjl

mikey72 wrote: »

This won't make any difference at all to liability.

I can only go on what I have been told by a Traffic Copper, not my opinion, but unlike some I will listen to those in a whose job it is to apportion blame.


Until somebody provides me with proof that the Traffic Copper is wrong then I will trust his viewpoint not one with no basis.

bigjl

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

No it won''t, stick to first aid advice.;)

Oh, what legal qualifications have you got?

Quentin

bigjl wrote: »

I can only go on what I have been told by a Traffic Copper, not my opinion, but unlike some I will listen to those in a whose job it is to apportion blame.


Until somebody provides me with proof that the Traffic Copper is wrong then I will trust his viewpoint not one with no basis.

Since when were "Traffic Coppers" the experts in civil law?

It makes no difference whatsoever to the liability issue whether or not the innocent party is insured!

This is just nonsense:

bigjl wrote:

It is entirely possible that his driving documents aren't completely in order, if he is wrongly licensed or has any paperwork issues then the accident would be considered his fault usually

mikey72

bigjl wrote: »

I can only go on what I have been told by a Traffic Copper, not my opinion, but unlike some I will listen to those in a whose job it is to apportion blame.


Until somebody provides me with proof that the Traffic Copper is wrong then I will trust his viewpoint not one with no basis.

That's the problem with some of them I agree.
Some do believe they are there to apportion blame, and try to act like judge, jury, and executioner in one fell swoop.

bigjl

Quentin wrote: »

Since when were "Traffic Coppers" the experts in civil law?

It makes no difference whatsoever to the liability issue whether or not the innocent party is insured!

This is just nonsense:

Surely we are talking about somebody breaking criminal law, not civil law.

They are pretty good at apportioning blame at the scene of an RTC, that is why they are trained in accident investigation, and can be requested to give evidence in court or at a Coroners inquest.

It seems simple that the person that isn't legally on the road should be blameworthy in an accident.

For example if a 10 yr old was driving along, uninsured and with no DL and there was an accident the Insurance would pay out for the 3rd party loss even if the 10 yr old isn't insured. They may try to get their money back at a later stage though.

If you where in a low speed collision with a 10 yr old who would you consider at fault, the personllegally using the road or the one illegally using the road.

bigjl

mikey72 wrote: »

That's the problem with some of them I agree.
Some do believe they are there to apportion blame, and try to act like judge, jury, and executioner in one fell swoop.

I have been on scene at several hundred RTC's and the Traffic Police make all kinds of measurements, survey the scene of the RTC to apportion blame.

There is usually somebody at fault in a collision, it is the Traffic Polices job to discover who is to fault.

This is very different to the way an Insurance Co acts, they will use any means to minimise financial exposure to losses.

I have been told this within the last few years by other Traffic Plod.

mikey72

So if someone nicks your car, and I hit it, you're at fault as your car is illegally on the road?
I'm happy if you are.

mikey72

bigjl wrote: »

I have been on scene at several hundred RTC's and the Traffic Police make all kinds of measurements, survey the scene of the RTC to apportion blame.

There is usually somebody at fault in a collision, it is the Traffic Polices job to discover who is to fault.

This is very different to the way an Insurance Co acts, they will use any means to minimise financial exposure to losses.

I have been told this within the last few years by other Traffic Plod.

And I always thought they were witnesses at the trial later, and then the judge and jury decided based on their evidence, and that of the defence. It's amazing how the police think it works.